Final Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
19TH COURT ESPLANADE, MUMBAI
COMMON BAIL ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATIONS
IN R. A. NO. 679 OF 2026, DRI, MUMBAI.
1) Bail Application No. 1240 of 2026
Applicant/Accused No. 1 - Ahmed Abdulselam Abdurahman
And
2) Bail Application No. 1243 of 2026
Applicant/Accused No. 2 – Mohammed Abdulselam Abdurahman
And
3) Bail Application No. 1239 of 2026
Applicant/Accused No. 3- Jemil Nuri Mohammed
….. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3
V/s.
The Union of India
Through- DRI, Mumbai ..… Respondent
ORDER
1] These Bail Applications are filed by applicants/accused Nos.
1 to 3 for releasing them on bail as per Section 480 of BNSS, 2023.
They have requested to release them in connection with File No.
DRI/MZU/B/INT-100/2026 registered with DRI punishable under
Section 135 (1) (i) of Customs Act, 1962.
2] It is stated that, the applicant/accused Nos. 1 to 3 were
arrested on 23/07/2026 by the officers of the respondent under the
provisions of section 104 of the The Customs Act, 1962. They were
produced before Court on 24/07/2026 for the offence of smuggling of
gold worth Rs.18,00,60,000/- and thereafter the applicants/accused
were remanded to Judicial Custody.
3] The case of prosecution is that, the specific intelligence was
received that, three passengers namely Ahmed Abdulsalam
-- 1 of 10 --
2
Abdurrahman, Mohammed Abdulsalam Abdurrahman and Jemil Nuri
Mohammed, arriving on 23.07.2026 from Ethiopia, would either carry
gold on their person or conceal it in the aircraft, with the intention of
smuggling the same into India with the assistance of certain airport
cleaning staff. It is alleged that, accused No. 3 had carried six gold bars,
received from one, at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and has, after boarding the
aircraft, handed over three gold bars each to the applicant/accused No.
1 and 2, with instructions to conceal the same in washroom located at
the rear of the aircraft. It is stated that, the applicant/accused nos. 1
and 2 has concealed three gold bars each in the left and right
washrooms, respectively, at the rear of the aircraft.
4] It is stated that, the officers along with the three accused,
entered the aircraft of Flight ET-610 and recovered six yellow-coloured
metal bars, purported to be gold valued at Rs.18,00,60,000/-, three
each from the left and right washrooms at the rear of the aircraft. The
applicants/accused are innocent and has nothing to do with the above
case. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the
officers of respondent. The applicants have disclosed the details and
they are fully co-operated with the officers by disclosing the details
known to them and their statements have been recorded by the Officers
in their custody. No fruitful purpose will be served by detaining accused
in the Judicial custody. The applicants are ready and willing to attend
department as and when directed by the Court.
5] On the other hand, the respondent DRI, Mumbai has
resisted the application to release the applicants on bail. It is stated
that, based on the intelligence, a watch was kept at Vector-8,
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), Mumbai,
-- 2 of 10 --
3
where Flight ET-610 was scheduled to arrive. Upon arrival of the flight
at around 08:40 AM on 23.07.2026, the officers identified the three
respondents through their passports and boarding passes and
intercepted them at the Aerobridge of Vector-8 at around 09:00 AM. It
is stated that, thereafter, the personal search of all three accused was
carried out. Accused No. 1 was found carrying a dark blue colour trolley
bag marked “akaru” and a green colour backpack marked “American
Tourister”, from which one orange colour T-handle Allen key was
recovered. Accused No. 2 was found carrying a similar dark blue colour
trolley bag marked “akaru” and a black colour backpack marked
“akaru”, from which one stainless steel L-shaped Allen key was
recovered. Accused No. 3 was found carrying an unmarked dark blue
colour trolley bag, an unmarked grey colour backpack and a small olive-
green colour sling bag marked “sport”, from which one blue colour T-
handle Allen key was recovered.
6] It is stated that, all three accused have admitted that the
said Allen keys were meant to be used for concealing the goods inside
the washrooms of Flight ET-610, in order to conceal the gold carried by
them and to facilitate its retrieval and removal from the aircraft with
the assistance of certain airport cleaning staff. It is stated that, the
accused No. 3 disclosed that, he has carried six gold bars, weighing
approximately 12 kg in total, received from one, at Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, and has after boarding the aircraft, handed over three gold
bars each to accused No. 1 and 2 with instructions to conceal the same
in washroom located at the rear of the aircraft. Accused No. 3 also
stated that he had personally instructed accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the
method of concealing the smuggled goods in the washroom using the
Allen keys carried by them. The applicants/accused No. 1 and 2
-- 3 of 10 --
4
corroborated this account and confirmed that they had concealed three
gold bars each in the left and right washrooms, respectively, at the rear
of the aircraft.
7] It is stated that, the respondents recovered six yellow-
coloured metal bars, purported to be 24 KT gold having a total gross
and net weight of 12,004 grams, valued at Rs. 18,00,60,000/-. The
applicant/accused have been implicated in the present case on the basis
of material and evidence collected during the course of investigation,
which prima facie affirms their involvement in the smuggling of gold.
The Applicant’s contention that they are not the owner/beneficiary of
the seized gold and that there is no documentary proof establishing
their ownership is of no consequence, as the case of the accused is not
founded merely on ownership of the seized gold but on their active
involvement in the smuggling and concealment.
8] During inquiry, accused Jemil Nuri Mohammed disclosed
that he had received six gold bars weighing approximately 12 kg (6 bars
each 2 kg) from a syndicate member at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, carried
them into Flight ET-610 and handed over three bars each to
applicant/accused No. 1 and 2 for concealment in the washroom light-
panel cavities. The details even if disclosed does not conclude the
investigation. Further investigation is still required to ascertain the
complete modus operandi, identify and examine the other members of
the smuggling syndicate, trace the source and financial trail of the
smuggled gold, and establish the applicant’s role in the smuggling and
distribution of the smuggled gold.
-- 4 of 10 --
5
9] It is stated that, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State of Gujarat vs Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal AIR 1987 SC 1321
has opined that, “the cause of the Community deserves equal treatment
at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The
Community or the State is not a person-non-grata whose cause may be
treated with disdain. The entire Community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought
to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool
calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit
regardless of the consequence to the Community.” The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reiterated the same stand in the case of Ram Narain
Poply Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 SCW 3257. The
same principle was followed by The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in
case of Smt. Amal Mubarak Salim Al Reiyami and Others Vs Union of
India, 2015 (9) TMI (196) and Anil Kumar Jain Vs Union of India 2019
(4) TMI (495)
10] The economic offences constitute a class apart and need to
be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y. S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, The Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. While
granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations,
the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
-- 5 of 10 --
6
punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the Accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the Accused, reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the Accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests
of the public/State and other similar considerations.
11] It is stated that, The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the
case of Dilip Kumar Versus Sr. Intelligence Officers, DRI, Chennai 2020
(374) E.L.T. 232, while dismissing bail application has held that
smuggling of gold from abroad into India is serious. The Hon’ble High
Court of Allahabad in M.M. IDRIS ALI Versus UNION OF INDIA 2019
(367) E.L.T. 946, has held that, release on bail in such serious offence
not good in larger interest of public and economic health of country. On
facts and circumstances of case as well as magnitude of gold recovered
from accused, application for bail rejected.
12] It is stated that, the applicants/accused are involved in a
very serious economic offence of gold smuggling involving 12004 grams
of foreign-origin gold valued at Rs. 18 crores. The applicants have not
disclosed the other members of the syndicate of the smuggled gold in
the syndicate. Granting bail to the applicants at this very crucial stage of
investigation would be detrimental to the smooth conduct of further
investigation, as the role of many other members of the syndicate is still
to be examined.
13] Heard Ld. Advocate Shri. Ravi Hirani for
applicants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Ld. Special PP Shri. S. R. Pathak for
DRI at length.
-- 6 of 10 --
7
14] Perused remand papers and documents filed by both the
parties on record.
15] This Court is guided by following case laws of The Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court filed by the prosecution and the
defence : -
i) Samson Osobai V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. in
Criminal Bail Application No. 3287 and 1566 of 2006, Hon’ble Bombay
High Court,
ii) State of Gujarat vs Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal AIR 1987 SC
1321, Hon’ble Supreme Court
iii) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, Hon’ble
Supreme Court
iv) Ram Narain Poply Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR
2003 SCW 3257, Hon’ble Supreme Court
v) Dilip Kumar Versus Sr. Intelligence Officers, DRI, Chennai
2020 (374) E.L.T. 232 , Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
16] It is argued by Ld. counsels for accused Nos. 1 to 3 that as
per section 187 (2), the respondent can record further statement of
accused by taking them into DRI custody. Now time is elapsed. They
cant interrogate. Why they have not utilised the custody period since
interception is best known to the officers. Bail is rule and jail is an
exception. Already statements under section 108 are recorded. They
have retracted their statements. There is no possibility to threaten the
witnesses as all are DRI officials. Whether any accused is entitled to
make entry at DRI office for threatening or interfering the
-- 7 of 10 --
8
investigation ? Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are foreign nationals. Entire
contraband gold, passport is with the department. Applicants/accused
are in judicial custody since 24/07/2026. No fruitful purpose would be
served by keeping applicants/accused behind bar. They are ready to
abide by any terms and conditions.
17] It is argued by Ld. Special PP that, only 40 days are over is
not a criteria to grant bail. Though respondent could not seek the DRI
custody, it does not barred it to record statement by visiting in judicial
custody. Though they have retracted the statements, but has not
mentioned anything or filed any proof of possession of gold. It is not
shown prima facie how they received gold. It is common intention in
furtherance of the act of smuggling. They are members of large
syndicate and possession was handed over from one member to
another. The statement under section 108 of the Customs Act is
evidentiary value though they are retracted. All are foreign nationals.
Hence prayed to reject the bail applications as they will not available for
investigation and risk of fleeing.
18] Here, in the case in hand, the applicants/accused are
intercepted by DRI in the activity of smuggling of gold. The sufficient
opportunity was granted to the DRI as they are in custody since
24/07/2026. Perused the affidavit of Zeba Khan. It shows that, no prior
antecedents are registered against these accused. Already statements
under section 108 are recorded. Though they are retracted, they will
have their evidentiary value. It will be considered at the time of
evidence. Considering the stage of investigation, proper and sufficient
opportunity was already granted. If terms and conditions are imposed
for assisting to investigation and making available for inquiry, then it
-- 8 of 10 --
9
will suffice the purpose of investigation. I think no purpose would be
served by keeping them behind bar till submission of complaint, as the
gold is seized and lying with the DRI. Hence, proceed to pass following
order : -
COMMON ORDER
i. The Bail Applications of applicant/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are
allowed.
ii. All applicants/accused be released on bail on their executing P. R.
Bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- each (Rs. Five Lacs each Only) with one or two
surety/sureties in the like amount of each.
iii. Cash bail of Rs. 5,00,000/- each (Rs. Five Lacs each Only) is
allowed, if they are not having surety/sureties.
iv. They shall not influence and tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence. They shall co-operate for further investigation
of the case.
v. They are directed to remain present as and when called by
respondent in connection with investigation of this offence under
written intimation, till further investigation is completed or till further
order.
vi. The accused shall surrender their passport to the respondent for
the period of six months from the date of their arrest. The department
to return passport to them after six months with due acknowledgment,
without any reference to the court.
vii. They shall take prior permission of the court for travelling
abroad.
viii. They shall furnish their residential address with proof, E-mail and
telephone/mobile number to the Court and to the Department. They
shall not change said addresses, telephone/mobile number without
prior intimation in writing to the Court and concern Department.
-- 9 of 10 --
10
ix. They shall furnish address and mobile number of two of their
nearest relatives with their consent to the Court and department
alongwith their address proof for contacting them if they failed to
appear during further investigation before respondent and during trial
of the case.
x. The Affidavit, as directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Zeba Khan V/s State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 825/2026
(Arising out of SLP Criminal No. 12669 of 2025) will be part and parcel
of this bail order.
xi. The bail applications bearing nos. C. C. No. 1240/BA/2026, C. C.
No. 1243/BA/2026 and C. C. No. 1239/BA/2026 stands disposed off,
being allowed.
xii. Original copy of this order be kept in C. C. no. 1240/BA/2026
and its verified copy be kept in C. C. No. 1243/BA/2026 and C. C. No.
1239.
xiii. The bail applications bearing nos. C. C. No. 1240/BA/2026, C.
C. No. 1243/BA/2026 and C. C. No. 1239/BA/2026 stands disposed off,
being allowed.
(Smt. Anuradha A. Pandule)
Date :08.09.2026 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai.
-- 10 of 10 --